Does it make any sense to try to convince the believer of the official tale (OT)?

But, you see, most people DO support the NIST's report. People like you just chalk all them up in the same group. Just because they agree with their
findings, you say they're being paid or that they're crazy.

If I told you that I believed the sky didn't exist because I had found 2000 scientists who all questioned the existence of the sky, would that make me
reasonable when the rest of the scientific community does think the sky exists? And would it be reasonable to believe them if these 2000 scientists
were made up of guys that also believed the world was flat, that the devil is trying to make people deviate from God, and that John Stuart reports
real news?

edit on 18-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo

Well no, maybe where you are at most people believe in the NIST report, or that is what you think, but if I would go around saying I believe in the
NIST report I might as well yell that I saw bigfoot. The people who produced the NIST report are not the scientific community. I am sorry, but you are
the moonhauxer in this setup, along with a wild tale of rich saudis (arent they suppsedly allies of America) attacking America because they hate your
freedom.

Of, course. Anyone screaming anything like that is going to get looked at funny. I have talked to a LOT of people, and none of them so far have
objected to me referencing NIST. I guess these people who think it is similar to bigfoot and aliens are just in a different area, eh?

Of, course. Anyone screaming anything like that is going to get looked at funny. I have talked to a LOT of people, and none of them so far have
objected to me referencing NIST. I guess these people who think it is similar to bigfoot and aliens are just in a different area, eh?

Yes I dont live in Indiana. That is the us, right? I live in Germany. Maybe I should have filled out my details, but I was like who is gonna read
those anyway. If you live in America I can see how the official NIST report might be the mainstream there in some areas, although even there many
people doubt it, from what I hear. I guess if I would drive to certain areas of the US and say I believe in UFOs from outer space in certain areas
people wouldnt think I am some kind of nut either.

Well here the NIST report is the exact opposite of the mainstream and not just because I personally talked to people with experise on the field.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Just curious, which part or claim exactly in the NIST report makes it so far fetched for you?

The part that enough load was transferred for the building to collapse for starters. Then there is the simulation for which the source code was not
released, at which point it was just a nice animation. However I am not sure who produced that. But like I said. It isnt me you must convince. I trust
people with more experitse on the field, who think the NIST is a bad joke, like errors, contradictions and exageration of actual data. Untill they
have not been convinced I am not going to venture on the fringe end of society, by embracing the NIST. Then there is the fact that they must have used
the NFPA manual for toilet paper.

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am sorry but the NIST report is trying to push a fantastic tale of special and unique events, which did not occour again since, even in relation
with building 7 which was not hit by an airliner and supposedly collapsed due to fire, a fire that did not look that bad looking on, unlike that
appartment building that burned in China 3 days ago which was a lot cheaper exposed to a fire far worse and did not collapse. Or the building that
burned in china on new years eve and was ablaze. And before you say it was more modern, what the f*c* were the standards for buildings that were built
in 1985 anyway? We are not talking about a structure errected in 1885, keep that in mind.

To determine what truly happened to WTC 7, we need to analyze what specifically happened to WTC 7. Basing your viewpoint entirely on what you imagine
should or should not have happened, or basing it upon what happened to some other building over in China, is poor methodology and intellectually lazy.
I shouldn't have to tell you that.

I myself am going by the testimony of Deputy NYFD chief Peter Hayden, who was physically there at WTC 7 on 9/11, and he specifically says the collapse
of the north tower destroyed the water supply to the fire suppression systems in WTC 7, that the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control, and that
it was causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure. This on-site eyewitness account shows the fires were doing at least something
nasty to the structure and therefore gives the NIST report at least some credibility. Your claim that "WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane" is an
irrelevent red herring and your claim the "fires didn't look that bad" is a certified false statement by those who were there.

Then there is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 30 min before it actually collapsed, giving detailed reason for the
collapse.

If you are going to quote this factoid then quote it correctly. The BBC reporters never announced it was WTC 7 that had collapsed before it did.
They reported the Salomon brother building had collapsed, and it's obvious they just didn't know the Salomon bother's building was another name for
WTC 7. I certainly didn't know WTC 7 was also known as the Salomon brother's building until you conspiracy characters started griping about it, so if
*you* didn't know another name for WTC 7 was the Salomon brothers building then it's a dishonest double standard for you to demand that a British
reporter should have known.

Believing in that video of the alien autopsy you are trying to push takes a lot of faith, is all I am trying to say.

Whatever you meant to say is immaterial. What you actually wound up saying is that you will stoop to outright dihonestly to advance what you yourself
prefer to believe. Circulating false statements, demanding unreasonable expectations from others, and irrelevent comparisons to some *other* building
tells me you're going out of your way NOT to find out what really happened to WTC 7.

Whatever actually did or did happen on 9/11, one thing is certain- you truthers are thoroughly unbelievable.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...so at what point of seeing conspircies first hand do they start suspecting hologram planes and lasers from outer space?

Where did i say that?????

I am talking about the fact that if and when people see first hand police corruption and gov, they see that people in authority abuse that power, and
it means they are open to understand things like 911 may have questions over it, like it was let happen.

All right, fair enough. If you experience such corruption first hand then I agree that you may suspect there may be further corruption that you're
not seeing...but that's not the point. The point is, you've become so overly sensitized to said corruption that you're now starting to attribute
unreasonable expectations from it almost to the point where it resembles the supernatural. I don't need to tell you that these conspiracies of
secret controlled demelitions, lasers from outer space, hologram planes, are way, WAY over and above what we would expect from corrupt people. Come
on, now, seriously, orbital lasers that destroy buildings but *not* people?

It's akin to a woman so afraid of being raped she's allowing irrational thought to override common sense. I mention this becuase not too long ago a
woman sent an email to everyone in our company warning that even in an empty parking lot, rapists can even hide underneath cars, grab women as they
open the door, and drag them underneath to rape them. Seriously, how much clearance is there underneath a car, anyway? Nine inches? A foot?

Just becuase there's corrution as well as rapists in the world, that doesn't mean they're magical.

My experience is that humans need to see first hand that conspiracies happen from gov and police before they question authority.

If they see corruption in police and gov they may listen, but if they do not and never see it, they seem to think all is well.

...so at what point of seeing conspircies first hand do they start suspecting hologram planes and lasers from outer space?

Every thread you do the same thing...YOU bring up all the BS theories YOU complain about...
Frikkin lasers from space and holograms are brought up by YOU more than any one else...
In fact I can't remember the last time anyone but YOU said anything stupid like that...
Care to show me the last time these silly theories were posted by anyone other that YOU ??

Every thread you do the same thing...YOU bring up all the BS theories YOU complain about...
Frikkin lasers from space and holograms are brought up by YOU more than any one else...
In fact I can't remember the last time anyone but YOU said anything stupid like that...
Care to show me the last time these silly theories were posted by anyone other that YOU ??

lol, not hard to see your tactics Dave....

...then you have not been reading the posts here with any frequency, as there are more proponents of these preposterous, "secret controlled
demelitions" claims here than I can count. They're easy to find because they're all but getting into fist fights with each other over whether they
were planted by the gov't, the Jews, or secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists.

No, it's called, "evasion". You tried to justify your conspiracy stories with poor information and I corrected you. Instead of addressing this
you just start making up reasons why you don't need to believe it like "I'm trying to shame you". Telling a woman that her dress makes her look
fat may be insensitive, granted, but telling her has less to do with wanting to shame her and more to do with the fact that her dress is still making
her look fat.

If you don't appreciate that we're pointing out why your claims are hogwash, then don't put out hogwash claims. It's not a trick question.

I didnt reply to you. I was not making any conspiracy theory. I merely got my information on why the tower collapsed from educated sources and no
offense to you, I am going to believe them over the NIST report, which is not accepted in the mainstream any more than moonhauxer literature is, over
some guy on the internet posting with profanity in his avatar picture writing on a conspiracy site. If you want to keep on wearing your tinfoil hat
and keep pushing your wild theories of never before never again events, the NIST report, bigfoot UFOs and what else you are on this conspiracy site to
discuss, by all means, do it. But there is no reason for you to get hostile with people who refuse to wear the tinfoil hat you offer them.

I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I
believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world,
they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?

Seriously, are you trying to be a troll? You're just being ridiculous now.

Yep, I'll admit I haven't read *every* report concerning the 9/11 attack, but I haven't yet seen or heard of one that involved tinfoil hats or Big
Foot.

What makes me laugh is that I'm actually trying to warn them from refraining from these childish antics becuase it only makes them look foolish, not
anyone else, and they still don't get it. The truthers own worst enemy is themselves, not any secret gov't plot to take over the world.

I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I
believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world,
they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?

"People with expertise in the field"? You mean like a New York City deputy fire chief who was physically there at WTC 7 and saw with his own eyes
what damage the fires were doing? The same one I'm quoting and the same one you're slandering by saying he wears a tinfoil hat?

I am just being ridiculous? You are the one who has been trolling with each and every post. What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much? I
believe people with expertise on the field over a guy with crap spelled out in his avatar posting on a conspiracy board. I guess in conspiracy world,
they are the ultimate authority. Well the tinfoil hat crowd is not the utlimate authority for me, is that really so ridiculous?

"People with expertise in the field"? You mean like a New York City deputy fire chief who was physically there at WTC 7 and saw with his own eyes
what damage the fires were doing? The same one I'm quoting and the same one you're slandering by saying he wears a tinfoil hat?

I will waste no more of my time on your foolishness.

Yes I trust people with expertise on the field over somebody who knows how to put out fires. But if you put more trust in these people.

firefightersfor911truth.org/

I am sure moonhauxers can quote "an expert on the insdide" too, I am still going to stick with the majority who says we did land on the moon.

Then there is the eyewitness accounts of firefighters who saw molten steele. The NIST report is not accepted in the mainstream. I admit to not being
an expert, but I wont believe "aww not this crap again" posting on a conspiracy site either.

If you are going to quote this factoid then quote it correctly. The BBC reporters never announced it was WTC 7 that had collapsed before it did.
They reported the Salomon brother building had collapsed, and it's obvious they just didn't know the Salomon bother's building was another name for
WTC 7. I certainly didn't know WTC 7 was also known as the Salomon brother's building until you conspiracy characters started griping about it, so
if *you* didn't know another name for WTC 7 was the Salomon brothers building then it's a dishonest double standard for you to demand that a British
reporter should have known.

How does this fit into the discussion at all?
The reporter stated the Saloman Brother Building had collapsed.
At the EXACT same moment she said that and for 25-30 minutes later, the Saloman Brothers Building stood behind her on camera in full view.
Whether or not she referenced it as WTC7 makes no difference.
The building was STILL STANDING.

This is what you're so good at Dave. Nitpicking a certain comment, and derailing the discussion.
SO Dave, what is your point regarding this?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.